John Locke's Conception Of Natural Law

Improved Essays
John Locke is arguably the most influential philosopher in regards to common law as a whole and specifically the development of the American Republic. His opinions on the nature of man and the duties of government lay the groundwork for representative democracy and fight heavily against the concept of divine right of kings. His belief is that people are born with freedom and that any subjection or restrictions should be created as a means to maintain the freedoms of all men instead of enforcing the will of any particular individual. Monarchy justified by divinity is a perversion of natural law because it takes away the right of man to govern his person and property and gives this right to another for no reason other than arbitrary chance …show more content…
So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights. The government is not to be used as a means to benefit from its subjects. No one man has any right over the rights of another be it by birth, power, or chance. Which is why Locke is so against the ideas of divine rights and absolute …show more content…
In effect, the government is something that the people themselves create as a means to mitigate conflicting parties and ensure that mean, which are born equal, are treated equally. While it is true that the ruling parties must have power over individuals and the ability to mandate certain laws these laws should always be focused on protecting the rights of the people. All of these theories on government, power, representation and leadership stem from the idea that people are born equally and that they rationally and logically want a society that protects these equalities from passion or aggression that opposes natural law. They are a necessity because while men may want cooperation and social constructs he is not infallible, and when a system is in place that acknowledges these fallibilities it prevents the state of war. These natural laws may seem contradictory when used as a means to support justified warfare, how can the right to life be taken away? The reasoning comes from the idea that some claims to power are unjust and that men have the right and obligation to protect there and others rights. When someone rules for self interest, ignores societies will, and threatens the freedom of people then he is no longer acting as a just ruler. The government should be made and should act as an extension of the populace and its goals, and similarly people should have a role

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Locke believed that individuals were born with certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the right to property). He also thought that people were more than capable of governing themselves. Locke theorized that the purpose of government was to ensure and protect the people’s rights and liberties. According to Locke, the only important role of the government was to ensure that justice is done. According to Hobbes, no matter what the government does, it is just by the very meaning of the word; all of society is a direct design of the state and a deliberation of the determination of the…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is human nature to naturally be evil and we must have government to maintain and regulate society, in order to prevent citizens from trumping others rights. Ideologies is a “prescription for society based on personal values.” A truly objective political ideology is almost impossible, but if it can be sensitive to the individual and best promotes their cooperation towards mutual ends. Ronald Reagan was a modern conservative who proposed many changes to how he thought…

    • 1738 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Government plays a very crucial role in the concept of freedom as government’s have power over society. Kant believes in a central form of government that can allow individuals to pursue to interests. In other words, Kant feels that government is necessary to ensure that others do not interfere with one’s interests and chance of pursuing then. Kant states, “At the end which is a duty in itself in such external relationships, and which is indeed the highest formal condition of all other external duties is the right of men under coercive public laws by which each can be given what is due to him and secured against attack from any others.” (Kant 174) Kant is explaining that men have the right to be protected from others while attaining the freedom that they deserve. Mill takes a different stance on this because he believes that to achieve true freedom, the government should only intervene when one’s freedom poses harm to others.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is due to man’s tendency to compete, act diffident and seek glory in his natural state that this state often leads to war , more so without a common power to keep men in place . One can argue that Hobbes over-emphasizes the dreadfulness of the state of nature to prove that rational individuals are willing to relinquish certain liberties to obtain the security provided by a Commonwealth, be it one with absolute power. His pessimistic view on people in the state of nature is contrary to that of Locke, who believes that subjects are equal in the state of nature not because anyone is capable of killing anyone, rather because no one is subject to any higher…

    • 1217 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hobbes and Locke find themselves at a standoff upon the question of the benefits surrounding absolute sovereign power in relation to society. Hobbes argues against Locke that absolute sovereign powers will rule without malevolence toward their subjects, and power should not be spread beyond one person. He says the idea of sovereign power being “divided” (Leviathan, 29:12) “against the essence of the commonwealth” (29:12) since “powers divided mutually destroy one another” (29:12). Division goes against Hobbes’ definition of a commonwealth – where creating power to defend people and their property “is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto…

    • 1225 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers. I support a support a system within the government that allows only for each branch to review and be responsible for their own decisions. The Constitution does allow for one branch to check up on the actions of another, however to allow the judges to simply have the full perspective not only for themselves but for all the other branches as well, I fear will lead to a judicial despotism that will be damaging to us…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    POT3302 POT 3303 Political Ideologies John Locke’s vision of individual rights, rights of rebellion The scholar John Locke opines that a government bears the mandate to serves its people by protecting their life, liberty and their property. In his view, governments should not endorse the tyrannical rule of law; instead, the dispersion of authority should include excising the rule of law that serves all people (Aaron, 2011). Thus, he supports the decision to protest or rebel against any form of government that violates individual rights. In his view, the protests or rebels are justly before any legal presentation. Locke vouches for thinkers of liberty with individual example cases like Thomas Jefferson and Algernon Sidney.…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The point of a government is to protect its people. Locke believed that if a government acts out of line and in their own self-interest, the people who are under its control should rebel against them and then construct a new government. He thought that man was able to govern themselves since they naturally were unselfish. Thomas Hobbes was another English philosopher who had pessimistic views that were a little different than Locke’s.…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He disagreed with the idea of an absolute monarchy, but instead said that limited power was more effective. With that being said, it is society’s right to overthrow the government whenever they have evidence to do so. Locke’s idea of a social contract was very different than Hobbes’. According to Locke, life in the state of nature was filled with “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation.” Locke strongly believed that because people were naturally moral, in a social contract, no competition or harm would be an issue. He thought that without a government to defend the people against those wanting to take advantage of them, soon fear would take over.…

    • 909 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Enforcement of laws that identify right from wrong and impartial judges preserve protection. Most important, a government's role is to serve the populace. Through a representative democracy, government will reflect their will. But, consent is necessary to the rule of law while it is…

    • 761 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays